Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes August 9, 2012

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

Minutes

August 9, 2012

7:00pm

 

Call To Order:  (by Chairman Gill at 7:01 pm) 

Members Present: Larry Burge, Jeff Gill, Kenneth Kemper, Scott Manno and Bradley Smith. 

Members Absent: None. 

Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Mike King, Assistant Law Director. 

Visitors: John Wilson, Carlo LoRaso, Brian Davis, Tim Riffle. 

Description of Procedure:

Mr. Gill provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows: 

Note:    The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings.  Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:

(1)     The applicant;

(2)    The owner of the property that was the subject of the application, if the owner was not the applicant or appellant;

(3)    The owner of property that was adjacent or contiguous to the property that was the subject of the application; and

(4)    Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application was approved or denied.

A person authorized to appear and be heard may:

(1)    Present his or her position, argument and contentions;

(2)   Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(3)   Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(4)  Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;

(5)  Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board. 

Old Business:

Mr. Kemper recused himself from the meeting and review of Application #2012-108. 

John Wilson, 40 Wexford Drive, Application #2012-108

Planned Unit Development District (PUD).  The request was for review and approval of the following variances:

1)         To allow for an accessory structure, more specifically a fifty-six (56') foot by seventy-six (76') foot basketball court with fencing to be located within a recorded easement, specifically within a fifteen (15') foot sanitary sewer easement, an eighty (80') foot Ohio Power Company easement and a thirty (30') foot Allegheny Pipeline easement;

2)         To remove the requirement that an accessory structure shall be constructed within the permitted buildable area of the lot, more specifically to allow a portion of the fifty-six (56') foot by seventy-six (76') foot basketball court to be built across the property line to the south onto a vacant lot (Lot #107); and

3)         To increase the maximum height of a fence from seventy-two (72") inches to one hundred forty-four (144") inches along the south and eastern sides of a full basketball court in the rear yard of the property. 

Mr. Manno moved to remove Application #2012-108 from the table.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.  Roll call vote to remove Application #2012-108 from the table:  Burge ( yes), Gill ( yes),  Manno ( yes), Smith ( yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-108 was removed from the table. 

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry, John Wilson, Carlo LoRaso and Kenneth Kemper. 

Discussion:

Planner Terry indicated the BZBA had requested further information regarding who would be responsible for making repairs in the easement area if the basketball court and fencing were disturbed in the future.  The issue that needed to be addressed was the easement encroachment and the variance to increase the maximum height of the fence. 

Assistant Law Director King indicated the Planning Commission questioned, during the previous meeting, whether a variance could be granted in an easement area and could the applicant build on an easement area.  He indicated a variance may be granted in an easement area.  Also, an applicant may build on an easement area; however, there should be an agreement stipulating the area to be built upon, permission to build and an outline for the rights and responsibilities of both parties.  Assistant Law Director King asked the status of the building location.

John Wilson, 40 Wexford Drive, indicated that he had spoken with the Allegheny Pipeline Company.  Mr. Wilson stated that Allegheny indicated he could build on the easement as long as the court was twelve and one half feet (12 ½') from the pipeline.  He showed the Board how he was now intending to rotate the location of the court to meet that requirement. 

Mr. Burge asked if the neighbors were consulted.  Mr. Kemper indicated this request had been reviewed by the Homeowner's Association and received their approval. 

Carlo Loraso, 119 Kilkenny Court, expressed concern regarding this projects impact on how ground water will flow and if ground water will be directed onto his property.  His property currently receives increased water during the spring thaw.  Could this project cause additional water flow to his property?  He also questioned if the court would be lit for night games. 

Mr. Wilson indicated there would be no outdoor lighting at this time.  Regarding the water issue, Mr. Wilson explained the portion of the court above Mr. Loraso’s property would be below ground level with an earthen mound.  His contractor stated that a French drain would not be needed for the project.  Mr. Gill asked Assistant Law Director King how the Commission should address Mr. Loraso’s concern regarding water run-off.  Assistant Law Director King stated the easement restrictions were the main issue.  The water run-off issue would be difficult to deal with as it was only a potential, possible issue, not an issue normally handled by the Board. 

The BZBA reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their Discussion of Application #2012-108: 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning Districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed True as the contour of the property impacts the court’s location. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE, as the court was an addition to the property.   

(2)        Whether the variance was substantial.  Mr. Burge and Mr. Manno agreed the proposed variance was substantial regarding the variance for the fence.  Mr. Gill and Mr. Smith agreed the proposed variance was not substantial. 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Mr. Gill stated FALSE, this project would not substantially alter the neighborhood or be a detriment to adjoining properties.  The BZBA unanimously agreed with Mr. Gill this was FALSE.  

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.  

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the BZBA agreed that prior to construction, the applicant must provide Village staff documentation from the easement holder(s) that the project does not infringe on an easement or documents stating that the easement holder was amenable to building on the easement and all rights and responsibilities have been properly outlined.   

Mr. Manno made a motion to approve Application #2012-108 with the condition that prior to construction, the applicant must provide Village staff with documentation from the easement holder(s) that the project does not infringe on an easement or documents stating that the easement holder was amenable to building on the easement and all rights and responsibilities have been properly outlined.  Seconded by Mr. Smith.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-108:  Burge (yes), Gill (yes),  Manno (yes), Smith (yes).   Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-108 was approved with conditions. 

Mr. Kemper returned to the meeting. 

New Business:

Brian Davis, 325 East Maple Street Application #2012-120

Suburban Residential District- (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request was for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for a driveway from five (5’) feet to two and a half (2 ½’) feet. 

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Brian Davis. 

Discussion:

Brian Davis, 3391 Battee Road, indicated that he was requesting a variance for a driveway.  The variance would reduce the set back from five (5’) feet to two and one half (2 ½’) feet so the driveway can be centered and not against the building foundation.   Providing this driveway would increase the value of the property and provide off-street parking for the tenant.  The driveway would be concrete.  Mr. Davis indicated that the neighbors have been advised and have not objected to the installation.

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning Districts.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are: 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.   

(2)        Whether the variance was substantial.  The BZBA unanimously agreed the proposed variance was not substantial as it would improve the value and look of the property. 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE, as it would improve the neighborhood. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burge, Mr. Gill, Mr. Manno and Mr. Smith stated this was TRUE.  Mr. Kemper stated FALSE.    

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE as the variance would provide a benefit to the neighbors and homeowner. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE as it was in keeping with the other existing drives.

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE as it would reduce street congestion. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  The BZBA unanimously agreed this was TRUE there are no special conditions.   

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2012-120 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-120:  Gill (yes), Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-120 was approved as presented. 

Tim Riffle, Denison University, 1000 North Pearl Street, Application #2012-124

Institutional District (ID).  The request was for review and approval of a conditional use for a press box to be located at the softball fields.  

Swearing in of Witnesses - Mr. Gill swore in Alison Terry and Tim Riffle. 

Discussion:

Tim Riffle, representing Denison University, indicated the University was building a press box for the softball field.  It would be an exact replica of the current baseball press box.  

Planner Terry indicated this application needed conditional use approval only.  The Planning Commission had already reviewed a request for architectural approval. 

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve Application #2012-124 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burge.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-124:  Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-124 was approved as presented. 

Finding of Fact 

Old Business: 

John Wilson, 40 Wexford Drive,  Application #2012-108

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2012-108 with conditions.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-108: Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2012-108 was approved with conditions.  

New Business: 

Brian Davis, 325 East Maple Street Application #2012-120

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2012-120 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-120:  Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-120 was approved as presented. 

Tim Riffle, Denison University, 1000 North Pearl Street, Application #2012-124

The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals found the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby give their approval of the application as submitted by the applicant.  

Mr. Smith made a motion to approve Application #2012-124 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Manno.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-124:  Kemper (yes), Manno (yes), Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Gill (yes). Motion carried 5-0.  Application #2012-124 was approved as presented.

Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes:

Mr. Burge made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for June 14,  2012.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper   Vote to approve June 14, 2012 minutes   Motion carried 3-0.    

Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes for July 12,  2012.  Seconded by Mr. Gill.   Vote to approve July 12, 2012 minutes   Motion carried 4-0.   

Motion to Adjourn

Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Mr. Kemper.  Motion carried.  The meeting adjourned at 8:15pm.    

Next Meeting:

September 13,  2012

October 11, 2012

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.